Real GDP Growth and Top Marginal Tax Rates

Regressive fiscal policy depends on the idea that cutting upper bracket taxes will somehow bring growth. Reality seems to show quite the opposite results, as seen in the charts below.

GDP data from the BEA; covering the span of 1930 - 2011

One could argue that perhaps the above chart of GDP growth under the same year as the tax rate might not fully capture the impact because it may take time for changes in investment activity to filter into production of goods. So below let's look at a chart compiled by lining up the tax rates with the GDP growth for the year following the tax rate.

GDP data from the BEA; covering the span of 1931 - 2011

It's hard to get more clear than that. In both the same year and next year match-up scenarios, top marginal tax rates of 70% and above clearly correspond with higher GDP growth than top marginal tax rates below 70%. Indeed, during the Reagan years -- contrary to regressive notions -- lowered top marginal rates came with a corresponding drop in real GDP that manifested as a clear, year to year linear trending correlation. These correlations don't necessarily prove that the higher tax rates caused the higher GDP growth, but they certainly prove that lower tax rates have failed to fulfill the regressive claim. Judging from history, one can not reasonably expect that lowering upper bracket taxes will spur growth. And as Diamond and Saez have shown, there's no reason to expect lowering upper bracket taxes would increase our tax revenue either, since the optimal upper bracket rate for revenue collection sits far higher on the scale than where we are now, somewhere in the 70+% range.

If anything, the data suggests that raising upper bracket taxes may be more likely to spur growth. How could that be? The obvious answer is reinvestment. Lower upper bracket taxes encourage avoiding reinvestment to reap profit. Higher upper bracket taxes encourage reinvestment to avoid reaping taxable profit. That said, increasing upper bracket taxes alone will not fix everything. No matter how much tax policy encourages investment, there must be domestic market demand in order for domestic investment to make sense. Yet given enough demand to make domestic growth investments rational, higher upper bracket taxes can -- and logically will -- encourage that positive choice.

The Tax Policy of a 12 Year Old Child

It's previously occurred to me that the Republican anti-tax policy seemed like the plan of a naive, young child. I hadn't realized it actually is.

"Norquist then explained that he thought up the ATR pledge when he was 12, prompting Bee to ask, “what other impossibly reductive gridlock inducing ideas did you have when you were 12?”"

from "Anti-Tax Crusader Grover Norquist Would Not Raise Taxes In Cases Of War, Natural Disaster, Or ‘Beard Flu’"

See also "The Daily Show's Samantha Bee Demolishes Grover Norquist"

We Could Pay Off The Debt. But Should We?

We could do it. If we wanted to, we could eliminate the deficit with taxes alone. The real question is whether we should.

Debt in perspective

Yes, you've probably heard that we can't. You've probably heard the claim that the deficit is unmanageable. You've probably heard the claim that the debt is some grand, unapproachable amount that we already can't possibly hope to pay off. You've probably heard the claims that our debt is so high there aren't enough assets or income in the country to cover it.

They're flat-out false. The only question is whether they believe what they're saying or they're purposefully lying.

Here are the numbers from the census data, the treasury, the fed, and the standard deficit projection:

• Number of households in 2010: 118,682,000
• Mean 2010 household income in 2010 dollars: $67,530
• 9/23/2011 current debt: $14.7 trillion
• Projected 2011 deficit: roughly $1.3 trillion
• Household 2010 net worth: roughly $57 trillion

So take those numbers above and we can see that:

• Net worth / household: $480,275
• Federal debt / household: $123,861
• Net worth after US debt / household: $356,414 (far higher than median net worth)
• National income / household: $67,530
• Federal deficit / household: $10,954
• Net income after deficit: $56,574 (significantly higher than median income)
• Deficit / income / household: 16.2%

The particular items of interest here are: 

• $356,414 dollars left over if we were to pay all all federal debt from all household net worth today
• 16.2% as the mean increase required to eliminate the deficit with tax increases alone

As $356,414 is far above the median net worth, most people would say that's far from broke. There would be lots of problems with actually liquidating private net worth, of course, so that's strictly hypothetical. The fact remains, however, that there is enough household net worth in the US to do it and still have quite a bit of wealth. Just because it isn't something we want to do doesn't mean it couldn't be done.

The 16.2% seems like a massive tax increase. But then consider that we've had higher taxes than that before. It wouldn't be all that bad if such an increase were done in a progressive manner. For the bottom 50% of taxpayers, losing 16.2% more of income would be catastrophic. But together they only make about 12.75% of total AGI, so managing without the bottom 50% isn't so hard. For the top 1% such an increase would be easily survivable and still far below what folks with such incomes would have paid in the 1950s and 60s. Based on the AGI's if we taxed the top 1% an additional 40%, that alone would cover over half the deficit. Just for a rough example, if we were to raise effective tax rates by 40% on the top 1%, 15% on the rest of the top 5%, 10% on the rest of the top 10%, 5% on the rest of the top 25%, and 2% on the rest of the top 50%, that would net us an additional $1.38 trillion. That'd be well more than enough to cover the deficit. Whether we want to do something like that or not, the fact remains that it could be done. If we collectively wanted to, we clearly could close the deficit with tax increases alone.

If you don't believe my numbers, please look them up yourself. If you don't believe these basic calculations, please pull out your calculator or spreadsheet and run them yourself. You'll find the same thing. We could cancel out the deficit if we wanted to. And we could pay off the debt if we really wanted to. That's part of why our debt is an international safe-haven investment at very low interest rates. But there's another side to the story. Do we really want to have no national debt?

2010 Intragovernmental Holdings

Of that $14.7 trillion, $4.6 trillion is intragovernmental holdings. Over $2.6 trillion is held by the Social Security trust fund alone. Social Security needs someplace secure to hold that cash till it's needed. We don't want them gambling it on stocks or volatile commodities like gold or oil. Even if the rest of the world weren't seeing lots of instability, U.S. Treasuries are the only reasonable option. That means our federal govt must borrow at least enough to be able give the Social Security trust fund a safe place to invest. The same holds true for at least most of the rest of intragovernmental holdings, many of which are insurance or retirement accounts. We don't want them anywhere less safe; and anywhere else is less safe.

So far, we've identified roughly $4.6 trillion of debt that we want right where it is. It would be senseless to force ourselves to find alternatives less secure than the full faith and credit of our own government for those holdings.

Holders of debt, Dec 2010

The rest? As of the end of 2010, there was $802 billion in pension funds. Shall we tell all the pensioners their funds have to be less secure because our debt hawks don't want us to have govt debt anymore? There's $517 billion held by state and local govts. Shall we force our other levels of govt to engage in risky speculation? Depository institutions (i.e., banks) hold $323 billion. Didn't we already get burned by letting banks increase their risk? Do we really want to go there? Wouldn't that be exactly the opposite direction from where we've been trying to push the financial industry? Insurance companies hold $244 billion. Guess why they've put it into Treasuries ... because they need the stability in order to keep insuring us without entirely relying on risky sources to back up our claims. Then there's another $2,046 billion held among mutual funds, savings bonds, and other investors. All of whom look to Treasuries for low-risk investments to balance out our riskier investments with some safe, guaranteed income. Shall we deny all our investors -- both wealthy folks and the grandmother nearing retirement -- the opportunity to choose additional investment beyond Social Security that's backed by the full faith and credit of our govt? To stop issuing federal debt would be to say, "No, you may be ready to retire and seeking to move your funds out of risky assets, but we're not going to let you have this guaranteed income option." Do we really want to say that? Seriously?

What's that leave? The foreign portion, under a third of our debt. That's the part we could seriously consider. That's the part we could pay off without forcing our own govt institutions, companies, and individuals to shift all of their investments into riskier options. But what does that part mean to us? Foreign investments aren't invested in our debt because of attractive rates to them. Quite the opposite; they could easily choose any number of investments with higher rates. But those higher rates all come with more risk. We're the place nations stow cash in case everything else fails, safer than burying it. It isn't about making money off us; it's about making sure they've got enough money socked away where it is more certain to be available than any other option. It's about stability. That means we're issuing debt at very low rates, lower than ordinary inflation. After factoring for inflation, all the world is literally paying us to hold their money safely for them. Why should we turn that down instead of using it to improve our infrastructure and lower our domestic cost of doing business?

The Sprint Towards Insanity

Wow. And we thought things were getting a bit nutty in the 2010 elections. One has to wonder, since the Democrats have adopted so many of the Republican ideas (e.g., cap-n-trade, etc.) years after the Republicans brought them up: For 2016 will the Democrats also embrace something like what's going on in the Republican party today?

Michael Tomasky said it well, in "The Lies and Lunacy in Tim Pawlenty's Economic Plan", "The Republicans have lost any connection to earth, and the Democrats are afraid (with a few noble exceptions) to tell the American public the truth."

It is in this context, that perhaps we shouldn't be entirely surprised that among the notable celebrated likely serious contenders for the GOP Presidential nomination are Santorum, Romney, and Gingrich. Santorum is so far right-wing that he's been known to make other conservatives nervous. Romney is best known for a plan from which he's desperately trying to disassociate himself and claim it wouldn't be good for the country. And Gingrich has that remarkable contradiction of championing the "Defense of Marriage" while himself going through wives like tissue during cold-n-flu season.

In a nutshell, the GOP is running a bowl of mixed nuts.

Ah, but there's Pawlenty, right? For quite some time, most of what we heard about Pawlenty was that he might be a bit boring ... that he lacked charisma. Perhaps he's not so boring after all. He's put forward a "plan" that's more or less total fiscal insanity. That's some exciting stuff. You can't be entirely boring when you put forward a plan that ridiculous. Then again, it does rather come across as the natural extension of the direction in which Republican policy has been heading.

As Tomasky put it,

"The lie, which one hears from Republicans on cable television on a daily basis, is that “we spent our way into this crisis.” Yes, federal spending has gone up significantly in the last decade. But increased spending wasn’t as decisive as decreased revenue. The truth can’t be said often enough: We did not spend our way into this crisis; we de-taxed our way into it."

If folks take that lie and base their world around it -- around the madness that cutting taxes would always be good and couldn't possibly be the real cause of deficits -- then they're going to come up with some really absurd plans.